Moderated by: chrisbet,
Rumour of a D2300  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost

Posted by jk: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 05:16 1st Post
Nikon D2300
    World's smallest DSLR camera (small size like the Canon Rebel SL1)
    There is a possibility that the D2300 will be the first DSLR-like camera without an optical viewfinder
    D2300 is a preliminary name and it can change
    Weight: 290g
    Announcement in May 2014
It seems that this may be Nikon's first DSLR without an optical viewfinder if so my predictions are coming closer that within 10 years all DSLRs will have EVF and possibly an electronic shutter so almost no moving parts. 
That camera is so light when you compare it with a D610 (850grams) it is nearly a third of its weight.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by jk: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 05:24 2nd Post
Looking at these details I woudl expect this camera to be only able to accept AFS G style lenses but technically it should be able to do either it just depends on Nikons vision of the camera.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by Judith: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 06:21 3rd Post
Pffft!!! They should be looking at shutting up the clamouring hordes who want a d400 first! My d200 is dying and I'm going to have to replace it soon. *sulks*


Posted by jk: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 10:29 4th Post
D700?, Judith.
Almost as good as a D3 but much lighter and with all the accessories that the D200 could use.
I dont know how your lens situation is but if you havent invested in DX lenses heavily it is worth the move up to FX.

Got a low use D700 if you are interested and it has the battery grip if you want more battery power.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by Judith: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 22:03 5th Post
No it isn't. As I keep telling you, the d700 is too damned heavy for my delicate little arms!! And I like the extra reach of the DX, esp with my new 70'300mm. Sigh....o.O


Posted by Eric: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 05:01 6th Post
Judith wrote:
No it isn't. As I keep telling you, the d700 is too damned heavy for my delicate little arms!! And I like the extra reach of the DX, esp with my new 70'300mm. Sigh....o.O
I hate to say this but the D200 is the same weight as the D300...so in the unlikely event of there ever being a D400, I can't see it being any lighter than what you already have.

Incidentally the D700 is only 100g heavier than the D200 ( the D610 is even less!) but as you say...not DX.

I think you would be better looking at the D7100 for a better mix of weight and performance. Or wait for the D7200 which may end up being the D400 in D7000 clothing.
;-)



____________________
Eric


Posted by jk: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 05:25 7th Post
Judith wrote: No it isn't. As I keep telling you, the d700 is too damned heavy for my delicate little arms!! And I like the extra reach of the DX, esp with my new 70'300mm. Sigh....o.O
Ah well I made the offer. Dont say you didnt get first refusal.  I understand the need for DX especially with telephoto lenses.
Robert also wants a FX camera so maybe he will be interested but I think he would rather have my D3.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by jk: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 05:28 8th Post
Eric wrote: Judith wrote:
No it isn't. As I keep telling you, the d700 is too damned heavy for my delicate little arms!! And I like the extra reach of the DX, esp with my new 70'300mm. Sigh....o.O
I hate to say this but the D200 is the same weight as the D300...so in the unlikely event of there ever being a D400, I can't see it being any lighter than what you already have.

Incidentally the D700 is only 100g heavier than the D200 ( the D610 is even less!) but as you say...not DX.

I think you would be better looking at the D7100 for a better mix of weight and performance. Or wait for the D7200 which may end up being the D400 in D7000 clothing.
;-) Judith doesnt like the feel of the D7000. Not as nice as her D200. 
I really dont mind as I find I get used to the camera.  I'm happy with my Nikon kit as it is.  I will probably slim down the cameras but keep the lenses.

I am investing more in my lighter and equally good Fuji X series cameras.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by Eric: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 10:23 9th Post
jk wrote:
Eric wrote: Judith wrote:
No it isn't. As I keep telling you, the d700 is too damned heavy for my delicate little arms!! And I like the extra reach of the DX, esp with my new 70'300mm. Sigh....o.O
I hate to say this but the D200 is the same weight as the D300...so in the unlikely event of there ever being a D400, I can't see it being any lighter than what you already have.

Incidentally the D700 is only 100g heavier than the D200 ( the D610 is even less!) but as you say...not DX.

I think you would be better looking at the D7100 for a better mix of weight and performance. Or wait for the D7200 which may end up being the D400 in D7000 clothing.
;-) Judith doesnt like the feel of the D7000. Not as nice as her D200. 
I really dont mind as I find I get used to the camera.  I'm happy with my Nikon kit as it is.  I will probably slim down the cameras but keep the lenses.

I am investing more in my lighter and equally good Fuji X series cameras.
I know what she means...the D200 and D300 feel nice in the hand...better than the D7000.

Maybe she should bag a D300S?



____________________
Eric


Posted by Judith: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 13:52 10th Post
Trouble is the d300s isn't that great an improvement re high iso on the d200. I find the light here in the north of Scotland is pretty poor and I'm fed up trying to hand hold at stupid shutter speeds even in the middle of the day sometimes. So, I want a "modern" camera that will last me for ages without needing and upgrade. I'm surprised the D700 is only 100g heavier as anytime I've held one it feels like a much bigger beast.


Posted by jk: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 13:55 11th Post
Down the gym! Get some muscles and have a D3S.
:-)



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none


Posted by Eric: Thu Feb 13th, 2014 16:38 12th Post
Judith wrote:
Trouble is the d300s isn't that great an improvement re high iso on the d200. I find the light here in the north of Scotland is pretty poor and I'm fed up trying to hand hold at stupid shutter speeds even in the middle of the day sometimes. So, I want a "modern" camera that will last me for ages without needing and upgrade. I'm surprised the D700 is only 100g heavier as anytime I've held one it feels like a much bigger beast.

Oops....On rechecking it's 154g ......1074g v 920g


Not sure what to suggest. I suspect there is very little ISO advantage between any of the lighter weight bodies. It's only when you get to the FX models, with their lower MP and bigger sized pixels, that you start to get the greater ISO advantage.

Sadly these are also the heaviest bodies.

Maybe the answer is a monopod.

But as they say 'if the answer is a monopod, it must have been a very silly question'

:lol:



____________________
Eric

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 858  
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Rumour of a D2300 Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Current theme is Blue



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0545 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 98 queries executed.